Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a suit filed by the sons of Sarala, a Hindu female governed by the Dayabhaga system of law, seeking a declaration that a sale deed executed by her on 13 March 1942 was not binding on them for want of legal necessity. Sarala had inherited 98 acres of land from her father Sashi Bhusan in 1920 as a limited owner. Her husband Kunja Behari died in 1937 leaving her with two minor sons and four daughters. Due to financial needs, she entered into an agreement to sell 0.90 acres on 22 October 1941 for Rs. 1,100/- and later executed the sale deed for Rs. 1,500/- to Chapalabala and Banikana, reciting that the sale was on account of financial needs, to meet certain debts, and out of other legal necessity. After Sarala's death in 1950, her sons filed the suit in 1953 alleging that the sale was without legal necessity and induced by fraud, misrepresentation, and undue influence. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the sale was supported by legal necessity and that the plea of fraud was not seriously pressed. The High Court in appeal reversed the Trial Court's decree in part, holding that there was no serious and sufficient pressure on the estate, accepting the plea of undue influence, and doubting full consideration. The High Court modified the decree, dismissing the suit for 10 cottahs due to non-joinder of an intermediate transferee but decreeing the suit for the remaining land. The heirs of original defendants 2 and 3 appealed to the Supreme Court by certificate. The Supreme Court held that legal necessity does not mean actual compulsion but pressure upon the estate which in law may be regarded as serious and sufficient. The onus of proving legal necessity may be discharged by proof of actual necessity or by proper and bona fide enquiries. Recitals in a deed do not by themselves prove legal necessity but are admissible, their value varying with circumstances; where evidence within the special knowledge of the challenger is withheld, the recitals aid the alienee with greater force. The Court found that the recitals in the deed about pressure upon the estate were amply corroborated by the circumstances, including strained financial circumstances, rent arrears, marriage expenses, and lack of other income. The High Court's observations on undue influence and lack of full consideration were unsupported by evidence and vitiated appreciation. The burden of proving that consideration was not received lay on the plaintiffs, and they failed to discharge it. The non-impleadment of the heirs of the 10th defendant did not affect the defendants' appeal because the relief claimed against defendants 1 and 2 could not be granted. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's decree, and restored the Trial Court's decree dismissing the plaintiffs' suit.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Legal Necessity - Proof of Legal Necessity and Evidentiary Value of Recitals - Hindu Law - Legal necessity does not mean actual compulsion but pressure upon the estate which in law may be regarded as serious and sufficient. The onus of proving legal necessity may be discharged by the alienee by proof of actual necessity or by proof that he made proper and bona fide enquiries about the existence of the necessities and that he did all that was reasonable to satisfy himself as to the existence of the necessity. Recitals in a deed of legal necessity do not by themselves prove legal necessity but are admissible in evidence, their value varying according to the circumstances. Where evidence within the special knowledge of the person seeking to set aside the sale is withheld, the recitals go to his aid with greater force and the court may be justified in raising an inference against the party seeking to set aside the sale. In the present case the recitals about the existence of pressure upon the estate were amply corroborated by the circumstances. Held that the appellants-defendants had amply made out that the sale deed was supported by legal necessity and the High Court's observations vitiated appreciation of evidence. (Paras 608 D-F) B) Hindu Law - Undue Influence and Fraud - Burden of Proof - Hindu Law - The High Court without adverting to the record observed that the case of persuasion and undue influence must be accepted, despite the trial court noting the plea was not seriously pressed and no evidence was adduced. The Supreme Court held that these observations were not supported by any evidence and seriously vitiated the appreciation of evidence. The burden lay on the plaintiffs to prove fraud, misrepresentation, and undue influence, which they failed to discharge. (Paras 606-607) C) Evidence - Consideration - Proof of Payment - Hindu Law - The High Court doubted whether full consideration was paid, particularly Rs. 899/-, but the Supreme Court held that the burden of proving that consideration was not received lay upon the plaintiffs. The recitals in the sale deed were supported by the agreement of sale, the endorsement on the sale deed for Rs. 500/-, and the testimony of Sailendra Nath Nandi. The court concluded that the sale deed was supported by full consideration. (Paras 607-608) D) Civil Procedure - Non-joinder of Necessary Party - Effect on Appeal - Not mentioned - The plaintiffs only claimed relief against defendants 1 and 2 for declaration that the alienation in their favour was not binding, and that relief could not be granted. The circumstance that the heirs of the 10th defendant were not impleaded in the appeal did not affect the right of the defendants to claim that the appeal must be dismissed. Held that the appeal by the alienees succeeded. (Para 610 C)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sale deed executed by Sarala, a limited owner under Dayabhaga Hindu Law, was supported by legal necessity and hence binding on the reversioners; whether recitals of legal necessity in the deed were sufficient proof of necessity; whether the High Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's findings on undue influence and full consideration; and what is the effect of non-impleadment of the heirs of the 10th defendant on the appeal.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's decree, and restored the Trial Court's decree dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. It held that the sale deed was supported by legal necessity and full consideration, and that the High Court's observations on undue influence were unsupported by evidence and vitiated the appreciation of evidence.
Law Points
- Legal necessity does not mean actual compulsion but pressure upon the estate which in law may be regarded as serious and sufficient
- onus of proving legal necessity may be discharged by the alienee by proof of actual necessity or by proof that he made proper and bona fide enquiries about the existence of the necessities and that he did all that was reasonable to satisfy himself as to the existence of the necessity
- recitals in a deed of legal necessity do not by themselves prove legal necessity but are admissible in evidence
- their value varying according to the circumstances in which the transaction was entered into
- where evidence which could be brought before the Court and is within the special knowledge of the person who seeks to set aside the sale is withheld
- such evidence being normally not available to the alienee
- the recitals go to his aid with greater force
- and the Court may be justified in appropriate cases in raising an inference against the party seeking to set aside the sale on the ground of absence of legal necessity wholly or partially when he withholds evidence in his possession
- burden of proving that consideration was not received by the vendor lies upon the plaintiffs
- non-impleadment of heirs of a necessary party does not affect the right of the defendants to claim that the appeal must be dismissed when the relief claimed against the original defendants cannot be granted.
